At 8:53 PM -0400 9/5/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 16:20, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>> *) I think we may have to have separate vtable operations for hyperoperators
>
>> *) I think I've finally given in, and vtables will be hierarchical
>
>Being vtable-ignorant in general:
>
>1)
On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 16:20, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> *) I think we may have to have separate vtable operations for hyperoperators
> *) I think I've finally given in, and vtables will be hierarchical
Being vtable-ignorant in general:
1) How big is *too* big (for the regular vtable)
2) How big
Since I'm about to go heads-down, as a deadline jumped a week closer
(to yesterday)
*) I think we may have to have separate vtable operations for hyperoperators
*) Calling conventions are changing *again*. Adding the type of the
return value, and the calling frame
*) We're switching from a tree
